A Leadership Identity Development Model: Applications from a Grounded Theory

This article describes a stage-based archetype of leadership identity development (LID) that accrueed from a grounded theory investigation on developing a leadership identity (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen 2005) The LID type expands on the leadership identity stages, integrates the categories of the soiled theory into the LID prototype and develops how the categories of the theory change across stages of the original The model has implications for working with individuals as they unfold their leadership identity and for facilitating clusters as they develop empowering environments for shared leadership. Connections to related scholarship and stage-based implications for practice are explored.

The extant literature upon student development theory (e.g., Baxter-Magolda, 1998; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; King & Kitchener, 1994; Perry 1981) and post-industrial leadership theory (eg Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Greenleaf, 1977; HERI, 1996; Rost 1993; Terry 1993) is significant. However, until freshly there was no research upon the process of student leadership unfolding that integrated these student exhibition and leadership development perspectives. The leadership identity unravelling (LID) theory (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen 2005) and this LID original address the research gap upon student leadership development. This article expands upon the earlier LID theory by the agency of building a LID model.

Student unfolding Theory

To better understand pupil leadership development, an intersection of learner development and relational leadership, it is instructive to review the pair student development and relational leadership literature. pupil development is an enhancement of identity towards complexity, integration, and change (McEwen, 2003a). Identity is defined as the faculty of perception of a continuous self (Erikson, 1968) The close attention of social identities (e.g., race, sexual orientation, sex class) and the interactions among identities (Jone & McEwen, 2000; McEwen, 2003b; Weber, 2001) are well established in the literature. Identity may also be applied to the proces of leadership and in what way one comes to adopt a leadership identity, which is informed by means of two key families of developmental theory: psychosocial and cognitive.

Chickering's psychosocial theory (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) positions the vectors of "moving end autonomy toward interdependence" and "developing mature interpersonal relationships" before the vector of "establishing identity". Chickering underscores the importance of relationships as foundational to establishing a personal identity. The final vectors, "developing purpose" and "developing integrity" attest to the importance of developing commitments in a pluralistic world, the connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts in which leadership is practiced (Chickering & Reisser).

Cognitive unfolding theory focuses on the meditation processes involved in identity disclosure Students able to be reflective in their thinking have a stronger faculty of perception that knowledge is constructed in social adjoining matters They understand that it is their responsibility to make faculty of perception of the world (King & Kitchener, 1994) pupils who take responsibility for constructing their reality in the world have achieved self-authorship (Baxter-Magolda, 1998; Kegan, 1994) Self-authorship is characterized by the agency of realizing one's autonomy and recognizing one's interdependence with others (Kegan). the couple psychosocial and cognitive developmental stages have ultimate parts that are congruent with the developmental processe necessary to establish leadership identity.

Relational Leadership

Post-industrial approaches to leadership in today's networked world hang on trusting relationships among nation working together toward shared goals (Alien & Cherrey, 2000; Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998; Pearce & Conger 2003; Rost 1993) The importance of relationships cannot be overstated. "Relationships are the connective tissue of the organization. . . over time, these fresh relationships, built on trust and integrity, become the gelatine that holds us together" (Alien & Cherrey, p 31) The reciprocal nature of these relationships provides a connection for postindustrial scholarship in leadership which values collaboration (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; HERI, 1996) ethical practices and moral results (Ciulla, 1998), credibility (Kouzes & Posner 2003) and authenticity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Terry 1993) Komives et al. (1998) used the mete "relational leadership" to describe this approach to leadership. They asserted "leadership is a relational proces of family working together to accomplish change or to make a difference that will benefit the for the use of all good" (p. ix).

Leadership disclosure Theory

In the last 20 years, community campuses have expanded the number and mark of curricular and co-curricular leadership programs (Howe & Freeman, 1997; Roberts, 1997; Schwartz, Axtman, & Freeman, 1998) Building upon the work of the Interassociational Risk Force upon Leadership (Roberts & Ullom, 1989) the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, 2003) presents a leadership standard that describes three approaches to leadership programs: leadership training, leadership education, and leadership exhibition Leadership development involves engaging with learning opportunities in one's environment above time to build one's capacity or efficacy to engage in leadership. This developmental approach entails moving from simple to more manifold dimensions of growth.